Sunday, 24 June 2012

In
recent years UKIP has increasingly used the term libertarian to
describe itself. Yet, libertarianism is a distinct political ideology
and not one which UKIP policy truly reflects. This has led to the
party sending out a confused message.

There
are two key strands of libertarianism. First, minarchy which stands
for a nightwatchman state designed to protect only the “life,
liberty and property” of its citizens. Second, anarcho-capitalism
which holds that practically all state functions could be performed
by voluntary bodies or charities.

The
following are two examples of policy areas where UKIP's stance is
incompatible with libertarian theory: gay marriage and immigration.

When
UKIP came out against gay marriage, its press statement said that the
decision was made from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians are
opposed to the state being involved in the way its citizens choose to
live their lives. Therefore they say the state should not set up the
institution of 'gay marriage' which would be the state sanctioning a
particular marital arrangement a couple have undertaken.

However,
the problem with UKIP's justification is that the true libertarian
view refuses the need for state recognition of any form of marriage,
including traditional heterosexual marriage. In the recent Republican
primaries in the USA , the libertarian candidate Ron Paul advocated
such a position when asked by the ultra socially conservative
candidate, Rick Santorum, if he would allow three people to get
married.

Nevertheless,
there is a political philosophy which UKIP's gay marriage stance does
appeal to aside from conservatism, namely, classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism was developed during the period of the
Enlightenment and though it lay the groundwork for the later
libertarians, it has come to be recognized as a distinctly different
political force.

Classical
liberalism maintains that the the state has an interest in certain
public goods which it should provide because all societal members
will benefit from them and that they wouldn't be provided if left to
the market and other non-state bodies. Two very important examples
are welfare and basic education.

Traditional
marriage falls into the category of objects which the state must
provide and sanction. Marriage is a core institution in British
society which has been there for hundreds of years. It fosters a key
part of our culture and identity and only the state can universally
sanction marriages across the various religions and creeds of the
British people in such a way.

In
the field of immigration, the libertarian movement is very opposed to
UKIP's desire, as expressed in its immigration policy document, to
cap immigration at 50,000 people per anum. For a number of reasons
libertarians are opposed to this measure. They think that, for
example, if Britain were to do away with all forms of the state
provision of public services, only rich desirable individuals would
come to Britain.

The
UKIP response should be twofold. First, UKIP does not want to do away
completely with all welfare, the NHS and state schools. While much
urgent reform is needed, these institutions are at the core of the
British nation-state. Nevertheless, even without welfare it is not
clear that poor migrants will stop coming to the UK for economic
reasons.

Second,
the desire to cap immigration at 50,000 is a common sense method of
ensuring that migrants can successfully integrate into British
society. Libertarians tend to be value pluralist, and do not see the
national culture as needing to be protected by the state. But while
UKIP could never be against immigration per se (immigration is a key
part of any democratic liberal nation-state) restricting immigration
to sensible numbers ensures migrant communities successfully
integrate into British society. This stops ethnic and racial
conflict, reduces the risk of terrorism and most importantly helps to
create a more peaceful, cohesive society. As Classical Liberal
thinker John Stuart Mill once wrote in his book Representative
Government: “Free institutions are next
to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among
a people without fellow-feeling… [e]ach fears more injury to itself
from the other nationalities, than from the common arbiter, the
State. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than
[their] jealousy of government.”

If
UKIP wants to realize its dream of a Britain outside of the EU, UKIP
must have a narrative and a vision of what Britain outside the EU
will look like. A move away from the libertarian brand will help UKIP
to create a more consistent and appealing narrative to the British
electorate.